MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al.

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 323227236631 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/31/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by BERNARD MENOR, JOVY MENOR on 08/03/2026 is Granted in Part.

On August 3, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant Bobbi Brown Professional Cosmetics, Inc. (“Defendant”)’s further responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories Set One (“SROGs”) and Requests for Production of Documents Set Two (“RFPDs”) and order monetary sanctions. Following meet and confer after the Defendant filed the opposition, Plaintiffs’ reply states that it is “narrowly tailored” to address ten remaining defects following Defendant’s opposition, so the court’s order addresses those items and the other issues are moot for purposes of this motion.

1. Defendant’s responses to Special Interrogatories 1-9

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s responses to SROGS 1-9 are incomplete. SROGs 1-4 ask Defendant to identify each talc-containing product it manufactured, bottled, labeled, and supplied, respectively. Defendant’s response identified two products mentioned by Ms. Menor at deposition.

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to SROGS 1-6. Defendant’s response is sufficient. Defendant’s overbreadth objection is sustained with respect to time period; Plaintiffs’ request is not limited to the relevant time period of Plaintiffs’ alleged asbestos exposure, and Plaintiffs do not explain how disclosure of Defendant’s products manufactured, bottled, labeled, or supplied, or the contents of Defendant’s packaging of such products outside of that timeframe is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff also offers no justification for seeking identification of products not placed at issue in this litigation. Defendant also submits persuasive evidence as to the burden of responding to this request as written.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART as to SROG 7 which seek the identity of the retailers to whom Defendant supplied any talc product. These requests are impermissibly overbroad as to time and, to the extent it seeks the identity of retailers to whom unrelated products were supplied, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

However, Defendant’s amended response is deficient in that it only identifies “department stores like Saks Fifth Avenue and Macy’s and beauty retailers like Ulta and Sephora” and does not provide a complete list of retailers to whom the relevant products were supplied.

Defendant is therefore ORDERED to provide a complete, code-compliant supplemental response to this request, as limited to Ms. Menor’s alleged exposure period and the products placed at issue in her deposition testimony and any other evidence in this case. 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 323227236631 in Department 18

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to SROGs 8 and 9. Defendant’s overbreadth, burden and relevance objections are sustained. Defendant’s amended responses to these requests are sufficient as stated in that they are limited to the time and period and products at issue in this litigation.

2. Defendant’s objections and response to SROG 10, 11 & 34, 35

SROG 10 and 11 ask Defendant to identify each of its talc suppliers and the mines from which the talc was supplied. SROGs 34 and 35 seek documents containing this information. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as these requests. Defendant’s overbreadth and relevance objections are sustained. Defendant states in response to these SROGs that it has made a good faith inquiry as to this request and does not have responsive information and provides context for that lack of information. This is sufficient under the circumstances.

3. Defendant’s responses to SROGs 15, 27, 28, 31, 43-47, and 53

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as to these requests. Defendant’s overbreadth and burden objections are sustained.

SROGs 27 & 28 which ask Defendant, respectively to “Describe each internal discussion at DEFENDANT concerning potential safety hazards of talc”, and “Describe each internal discussion at DEFENDANT concerning potential safety hazards of asbestos” (emphasis added). Defendants objections that these SROG are vague, ambiguous, and overbroad are SUSTAINED, and Plaintiffs present no evidence that they meaningfully sought to narrow or clarify these SROG during meet and confer proportionate to the claims at issue.

SROG 31, which asks Defendant to “Identify each Material Safety Data Sheet DEFENDANT received from any supplier of talc” (emphasis added). Material Safety Data Sheets are undoubtedly discoverable or relevant, but SROG 31 is vastly overbroad and Plaintiffs present no evidence of an attempt to narrow this request during meet and confer proportionate to the claims at issue.

SROG 53, which asks Defendant to “Identify each document concerning any consideration by DEFENDANTS of whether to discontinue using talc in any product DEFENDANT manufactured” (emphasis added). The court sustains Defendant overbreadth objection, and finds that Defendant’s Amended Responses are acceptable under the present circumstances in this trial preference action where Defendant has identified specific documents and Plaintiffs’ argument for compelling a further response is that the SROG “asks [Defendant] to identify each document concerning any consideration of whether to discontinue using talc” (i.e., there was no attempt to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 323227236631 in Department 18 narrow this request during meet and confer). (Def’s responsive Sep. Stmt. at 131:2-131:3.)

The court further agrees that Defendant’s responses comply with CCP 2030.230 and requiring Defendant to respond in the manner Plaintiff seeks would be an undue burden.

4. Defendant’s response to SROGs 48-50

These requests seek information regarding Defendant’s history (or lack thereof) of testing its products for asbestos.

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to these requests. The response is overbroad in the same manner as SROGs 1-9. Moreover, Defendant’s amended response is complete; it identifies the information known to Defendant and the Bates numbers of documents pertaining to the tests. Defendant remains obligated to supplement or amend its response if it discovers additional responsive information, but Plaintiffs do not provide a basis for a conclusion that Defendant’s response as written is incomplete.

5. Defendant’s responses to RFPDs 33, 36, 52, 85, 87, 96, 101, 107, 110, 113

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to this category. Defendant’s overbreadth objections are sustained. The requests at issue are overbroad in that they seek all documents pertaining to “each talc-containing product” Defendant manufactured, without limitation on time or the products at issue. Defendant’s response appears sufficient within those reasonable limitations.

6. Defendant’s “no documents” responses (RFPDs 31, 77-79, 111 & 116)

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to this category. Defendant’s assertion that no documents exist is deficient as stated. To the extent possible, Defendant is required to confirm that a reasonable inquiry was made, the reason why Defendant is unable to produce responsive documents, and the identification of a custodian believed to be in possession (if Defendant is aware of one). Defendant is ORDERED to provide code-compliant amended responses to RFPDs 31, 77-79, 111, and 116 in accordance with the above.

7. Defendant’s response to RFPD 80.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART as to RFPD No.

80. Defendant’s response consists entirely of objections. The request is overbroad in the same respect as other described above, and in that it seeks information as to retailers for which there is no evidence that Plaintiff ever bought talc products. However, the existence and contents of indemnity agreements covering the products and retailers at issue in this case for the relevant time period are plainly relevant t. Defendant is thus ORDERED to produce any indemnity agreements in its possession between itself and retailers from whom Ms. Menor allegedly purchased talc-containing products for

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 323227236631 in Department 18 which Defendant is liable during her exposure period.

8. Defendant’s response to RFPDs 90 and 91.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. Again, the requests are overbroad. However, within the limitations described above, the request seeks relevant information and Defendant has already indicated its willingness to provide a response. Given that it is the eve of trial in this preference case, Defendant is ORDERED provide a complete, code-compliant response to this request and produce any responsive documents in its possession to the extent that it is able.

9. Defendant’s responses to RFPDs 146 and 148.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to these requests. Defendant’s amended response does not state a reason why the requested materials no longer exists. If Defendant is aware of that reason, it must so state in an amended response.

ORDER For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART in accordance with the above. Defendant is ordered to serve complete, code-compliant responses in compliance with the court’s order within 7 days of entry of this order and produce any and all responsive documents within 10 days of entry of this order. Given Plaintiffs’ partial success, the court finds that Defendant’s opposition had substantial justification and declines to grant monetary sanctions.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps.

1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.